Errors-To: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Reply-To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Sender: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
From: owner-chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
To: chalkhills@sgiblab.sgi.com
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #5-340


         Chalkhills Digest, Volume 5, Number 340

                Thursday, 16 December 1999

Today's Topics:

                  Roll Another Number...
                   XTC Live and direct
     "...We smiled and whispered 'Someday, soon...'"
            One Socially Impaired Student Here
Introducing for the very last time..... The Vince Guaraldi Trio
          Best Xmas Present: Austin, TX in March
                        For Nathan
                        Year Ends
                   That's some catch...
                  Me, Myself, and Irene
                    What the Dickens?
                Redneck Wonderland musings
                   Stupidity in Nihilon
                         OT Drugs

Administrivia:

Please save me from the drug discussion.
This is an XTC list, not an XTC list.

    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:

	unsubscribe

    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:

	<chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>

    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:

	<chalkhills@chalkhills.org>

    World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7 (John Relph <relph@sgi.com>).

9 days / Countdown.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: <4782AD6ADDBDD2119B570008C75DD5C12DBBE4@mgmtm02.parliament.uk>
From: Lawson Dominic <LawsonD@parliament.uk>
Subject: Roll Another Number...
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:48:39 -0000

>>Thanks, Drew MacDonald, for an enlightening explanation of music
usage. It *is* still possible to learn something here.

Well maybe for you lesser mortals, but obviously I know everything there is
to know about everything, and I have NEVER lost a logical argument. Mind
you, this might be because I'm a big, girly wuss with no penis and a bad
case of paranoid psychosis. Just a thought...

>> I didn't
want to post on completely off-topic material, but here goes.  Forgive me
everyone.

Don't apologise. It's interesting, for Andy's sake, which is more than can
be said about discussing "Dear God" with people who don't understand XTC's
most blatant song lyric ever.

>>the moral fabric of this country
in specific and the world in general has been on a steady decline since the
60's

Hysterical rubbish, and furthermore hysterical rubbish perpetuated by
religious, right-wing idiots who object to notions of freedom, social
responsibility and compassion (and before you swallow your tongue, I'm not
including your good self here, merely suggesting that your views are linked
to that particular school of thought, albeit in a vague manner). Don't
confuse oppression with order!

>> No one cares about what anyone thinks, says, does, or wants to do
anymore.  No one cares, period.

Utter shit. Maybe in your backyard mate, but not in mine and certainly not
the experience of the majority of people. Yes, societies have become much
more selfish and avaricious - thanks America! - but to say that people don't
care anymore, as if no one ever did anything selfish before The Beatles came
along, is just plain daft.

>> If people are given the "right"
to act as they wish, the outcome will be detrimental to society as a whole.

A nice phrase, but not backed up with anything resembling evidence. "Do what
you will but harm none" is a perfect philosophy, only marred by people who
take the piss and ignore the second bit......should we therefore abandon the
principle and go back to prohibition & public executions?

>>Laws serve two purposes, one
is to protect the people from physical harm, the other is to uphold a sense
of moral dignity.

Well I'm no expert (on anything) but that sounds like bollocks to me. Laws
have nothing to do with upholding "moral dignity", whatever that means, and
since morality is an arbitrary concept imposed by whoever is in charge at
any given time, I fail to see why I should have to fall into line with
someone else's values, whether they purport to be doing it for our own good
or not.

>>There has to be some kind of reward/punishment system for
laws to work, for morals to remain.

Laws yes, morals no. Laws & morals should have nothing to do with each
other. Why do baying mobs appear outside courthouses when a paedophile is
convicted? Because people thing they are "morally" justified in screaming
for the blood of someone who is, basically, mentally ill. Should such a view
be reflected in law? Should it fuck!!!! People are stupid enough already
without giving them a mandate to assume moral superiority over the rest of
us.

>>Why should I have
to worry about my future children becoming drug users just because YOU want
to be one right now?

Your kids are your responsibility and your problem. What I do in my spare
time has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, and unless you make a
complete balls-up of child-rearing, your offspring should have a pretty good
idea of what's "right" and "wrong" by the time the dangers of drugs march
over the horizon. That, my friend, has fuck all to do with other people's
recreational habits.

>>How do you feel about the possibility of your children
using drugs LEGALLY?  I don't know anyone who feels good about it, including
those who use or have used drugs.

Well I wouldn't feel good about it, but then I'd rather my children were
free to smoke a spliff, should they wish to, without being referred to as
junkies or criminals. I'd rather my taxes weren't wasted on locking up
potheads who are far less likely to be violent or dishonest than the vast
majority of the hideous reactionaries who poison the public's perception of
marijuana with inaccurate and often disgraceful propaganda. And furthermore,
I'd rather know that my children - should they be foolish enough to
experiment with ecstasy, LSD or something worse - are able to get hold of
drugs which have been tested and approved, rather than some dodgy street
shit which is full of toilet cleaner, washing powder and rat poison. Call me
fussy, but if you want the best for your kids then that includes the best
drugs. Tasteless? Maybe, but if you really think that criminalized drugs are
in any way helpful to solving the problems drugs cause then you clearly
don't remember what being a teenager feels like. Ooh, is it illegal? Well I
won't touch that then....I might get ticked off by my mum!

>>And once they legalize marijuana, what's to stop other drugs
from being legalized?

And there it is folks, the classic crap argument. Point One: Marijuana is
not the same as coke, heroin, speed, LSD, ecstasy or any of the other
illegal drugs. It's not the same in form, effect or level of risk. In fact,
there is no risk unless a ton of it falls on your head. The big problem with
pot is that people consistently include it in lists of "dangerous drugs"
when in fact, as everyone with a brain knows, it's less harmful than
alcohol, cigarettes, driving and probably mobile phones (BRAIN CANCER!!!!).
Treating it the same as heroin is fucking moronic, and it's no wonder that
so many innocent people get banged up for smoking a bong when ostensibly
intelligent people are taken in by this shameful nonsense. Point Two: There
is no reason why any other drugs would need to be legalized if marijuana
was. As I say, on one hand you have "marijuana" (a lovely smoke, makes you
relaxed, might damage your short-term memory but then again doesn't the
ageing process do that as well? Can't remember....) and on the other you
have "dangerous drugs" (well, dangerous basically - may make you wander
around in the streets at night with just your underpants on, attempting to
shoot an imaginary friend called Bubba while various parts of your body emit
undesirable liquids).

Personally I couldn't give a shit about other drugs. I actually think that
some of the legalization arguments are pretty compelling but I share your
concerns about the unknown consequences.....as far as pot goes, I think
everyone should be forced, at gunpoint, to smoke the stuff. Mind you, I'm
not known for being reasonable.

>>So you tell me, are the pro-pot organizers such
good people?  Doesn't sound like it to me, they happily let these riders get
attached to the bill in order to satisfy their habits.  These are people who
want society to adjust itself to their lifestyles.

No, they just want to smoke some pot & maybe sell it to their friends. Basic
commerce, basic freedoms. If society wasn't so stupid in the first place,
these people wouldn't wind up in prison anyway & your taxes wouldn't be
wasted on "protecting" the public from men with beards who eat lots of
Twinkies and listen to Grateful Dead records. Ooh scary.

>>I say, if you want to do drugs, do them.

Cheers!........SNOOOORRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!!!.........mmmm, paperclips!

>>If it were up to me, cigarettes and alcohol would be illegal too.

Thank God it's not up to you then, Adolf.

>>I
don't use nor have i ever used drugs of any kind.  I don't want to, I don't
care to.

Then you're in the worst possible position to comment on the subject. That's
like me criticizing surfboarding.

>> I've seen what idiots people turn into because of this stuff.

Firstly, it's terms like "this stuff" which totally weaken your argument.
What do you mean? Pot? Heroin? Tipp-Ex? Secondly, not all drug users end up
as cabbages. There are those who might dispute this, but I seem to be able
to string a sentence or two together without completing losingioulj eoiqua
9g na;/.

>>However, studies have shown that the "medicinal"
properties can be gained from extracting the substance from the plant and
giving it in a pill form.  Do the "medical marijuana" proponents want you to
know this?  No, they don't.  Why?  Because it's not about legalizing a
substance for medical use, it's about legalizing it for their own use.  I'm
all for anything that will help TRULY sick people.

Judging by your reaction, it seems that your criteria for assessing the
"truly sick" would be so stringent that only the clinically dead would
qualify. Sorry, but if you want to treat the sick then do it - don't be
denying people treatment because, as a result of that treatment a few people
might score some good pot. They'll get some anyway - something that a lot of
people don't seem to realise....yes, it's INCREDIBLY easy to get hold of
marijuana - and the poor sod with glaucoma or ME just suffers. Where's your
morality now, devil boy???

>>Marijuana doesn't need
to be "legalized" for this.

Yes it does. Do you seriously want people with serious illnesses to be
labelled criminals, just because their only source of relief is something
you wrongly believe to be a threat to society? Make your mind up, you can't
have it both ways.

>>Prove to me that
legalizing drugs now will not harm the future potential of our children,
that they will not become lethargic addicts, junkies, and losers.

If your kids become lethargic addicts, junkies or losers then the principal
culprit will be you I'm afraid. If you can't teach your kids to be careful,
observant and sensible then you're the failure and it has nothing whatsoever
to do with drugs, legal or otherwise. Kneejerk bullshit, it pains me to say,
has kept the "war on drugs" afloat for years and years and, as Bill Hicks
memorably pointed out, it's the people on drugs who are winning. What does
that tell you? (And please don't answer - it's a rhetorical whatsit).

Just for the record, I'm not "pro" drugs. I'm fervently "pro" my right to
smoke marijuana as often as humanly possible, but as far as other drugs go I
have no particular desire to get involved in the debate at all. It's the
uninformed drivel which inevitably gets spouted in these debates which
really winds me up. 19th century morality has no place in a modern and free
society - remember John Major's spectacular "back to basic" campaign? No,
nor does anyone else - and you can't pick and choose your freedoms. If
society is in a shit state, look to the guns, violence and social exclusion
for your answer. Drugs are a symptom, not the problem itself, and since
people have been devising new, exciting ways to get out of their heads since
Moses first skinned up on the Ten Commandments it seems unlikely that being
uptight and misinformed will help a great deal. Don't bogart the joint
either....

Cheers.

Dom "Harrison may have started this but he has a time machine and was really
just trying to be like me" Lawson.

------------------------------

Message-Id: <199912141212.NAA01559@imaginet.fr>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:15:14 +0100
Subject: XTC Live and direct
From: "jkp" <jkp@digitalshadow.com>

Hello,

I've got a big problem and I hope you can help me. I've promised to a very
good friend of mine to download some of of the files of the XTC live and
direct. But as you know the server is down and my friend will KILL ME if I
don't give them to him.  So please tell if you know where I could find them
or if you know someone who has them.

Thanks a lot

Julien

------------------------------

Message-ID: <38565D26.C9ADB380@ci.conover.nc.us>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:07:18 -0500
From: erik schlichting <eriks@ci.conover.nc.us>
Subject: "...We smiled and whispered 'Someday, soon...'"

"Scott & Karyn Creedon" <creedons@mindspring.com> wrote:

"I think its time that some guidelines be established with
respect to what
can or what cannot be said in this forum if people continue
to attack what
some people believe ...."

While I agree that this forum should concentrate on XTC,
it's members and their music, I wholeheartedly disagree that
any guideline be established to limit what can be said here.
Self-censorship should be more than adequate. It is
unreasonable to ask that someone be silenced simply because
you disagree with their point of view. I admit that much of
what has been going on lately is heavy-handed and not much
fun to read, not to mention immature, but what you may view
as "bashing" may be the way the basher really sees things.

Movies: Lots of good choices have been mentioned in the
"Movies" thread. I just want to plug one of my all-time
favorites that I don't believe has been spoken of yet, Terry
Gilliam's "Brazil." When first I saw this movie, all those
years ago, it blew me completely away. Very funny, and very
dark.

This past weekend, I drove from Hickory to Morehead City and
back, about six hours each way, to go deep-sea fishing. The
trip was canceled (grrrrr you could have called, you had my
number!), but on the way back I had English Settlement
cranked from Chapel Hill on. I didn't realize how into it I
was until somebody went by laughing and pointing as I
screamed along to "Jason and the Argonauts." Mildly
embarassing, but it didn't stop me. Now, if only my
girlfriend understood....

Erik

------------------------------

From: JStrole@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.443526ab.2587b9f3@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:19:15 EST
Subject: One Socially Impaired Student Here

(although I can picture some of the more
socially impaired students trying to champion "Potempkin" as the best of
all time).  ;)

Normally, I keep out of the film talk, but, why do I have to be socially
impaired to like "Potempkin?"  This is one of the great silent films ever
made.  Truly emotional and well done.  Look, rising up against oppression
isn't a bad thing.  Though being Stalin was.  BTW as far as Eastern block
films go, has anybody seen the documentary "East Side Story?"  It's a film
about musicals in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

Tom anti-drug tirade has a lot of agreeable points here.  However, Tom how do
you stop this?  It makes no sense to me personally, because part of the whole
hippie thing was getting back to nature and so many did the most unnatural
thing by forcing smoke down their lungs and how much more synthetic can you
get than LSD.  I always felt that the whole hippie utopia bit was ruined by
the insistence on taking drugs.  IMHO This was a way for organized crime to
get their mits on something and ruin it as usual.  It was also a way for the
older generation to wag their finger at their kids and tell them they are bad.

Harry

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19991214132109.5377.qmail@web108.yahoomail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:21:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Jon Rosenberger <wile1coyote@yahoo.com>
Subject: Introducing for the very last time..... The Vince Guaraldi Trio

The Wonderful Ms. Heller stated she was jamming in the "Gap" thusly.

 "It was rather cheering, even in the midst of that
crowd (and it was followed by the piece used for the Peanuts cartoons--
I
can never remember the composer's name-- so that was doubly good)."

Vince Guaraldi of the Vince Guaraldi Trio a formidable Jazz combo who
also produced a number of Jazz albums in the Sixties before penning the
tunes for the Charlie Brown TV Specials of which the Christmas one is
the most probably the most famous. A full CD of this is available and
personally only one CD gets more play at Christmas than this at my
place(the Chipmunks Christmas of course!!)

Also I find it very amusing thinking of these three hep Jazz guys
sitting around a room watching this cartoon about this nerdy kid and
his dog discovering the true meaning of Christmas while smoking huge
ganja stuffed spliffs and stuffing their faces with popcorn or whatever
their munchie craved minds could find.

No wonder the music is so happy sounding.

The Mole (I can't find me Hookah :(~  ) from the Ministry

PS: Mind the Gap, Luv, Mind the Gap!

------------------------------

Message-ID: <900822C71730D2118D8C00805F65765CCA3972@einstein.moneystar.com>
From: Jill Oleson <oleson@moneystar.com>
Subject: Best Xmas Present: Austin, TX in March
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:30:45 -0600

Don't know what to wish for come Christmas time?
In addition to "Apple Venus, Volume 2," you could
wish for a nice vacation in Austin, Texas during our
city's grand South by Southwest (SXSW) Conference
and Festival in mid-March.

The conference and festival includes Music, Film, and
Interactive-Media sections.  For many of you Chalkers,
the company you work for may be willing to pay for
your attendance.  Since I am a Web designer (among
other things!), a company I recently worked for paid for me
to attend a couple of years ago--and I learned a lot about
cutting-edge Internet technology.  So whether your business
(or passion) is music, film, or electronica, this conference
has something for you!

For more information, see:

       http://sxsw.com/

We'll have a mini-Chalkfest during the conference then
as we have in the past.  If you think you'll be in Texas
in mid-March, please let me know.  We'll pick the date,
time, and place for a meeting sometime in early March
after I've heard who's coming and when.

Please let me know if you have any questions after you've
reviewed the SXSW Web site.

Thanks!

Jill Oleson
Austin, Texas

------------------------------

Message-ID: <D9E6CEC7734AD111BCF70090273C5D67011ABCA7@user8.chemonics.net>
From: Todd Bernhardt <TBernhardt@Chemonics.net>
Subject: For Nathan
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:56:26 -0500

Hi:

>From David Oh, in #334:

>to Todd Bernhardt, who said, "I think idol gossip is all we have to hold on
to"; now, do you mean that to be gossip about heroes (idol), or meaningless
gossip in general (idle)? <

The pun was intentional.

Don't you just hate it when you have to explain a joke?

--Todd

------------------------------

Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991214110004.009585c0@chelmsford.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:42:20 -0500
From: David Gershman <dagersh@pobox.com>
Subject: Year Ends

Hey Chalkies,

The illustrious Mark Strijbos said:
 >First of all a remark about the recent flurry of "Albums of the 90's"
 >and "Composers of the Century" lists... as this decade, century and
 >indeed this millenium won't be over for another year don't you all
 >feel just a bit premature? Who knows, perhaps you'll enjoy Apple
 >Venus Vol. II even better than Volume I - just a thought.

Unfortunately, Mark, you seem to be a bit confused on this point. While the
millennium does indeed end at the end of the year 2000, not 1999, this
decade and century DO, in fact, end in just a couple of weeks. The last
year of the '90s is *not* "2000," nor is it the last year of the 20th
century. Reason being: While there was no "year 0000" to begin the
millennium, there WAS a "year 1900" to begin this century and a "year 1990"
to begin this decade, putting them both a year ahead of the millennium end.
Hope that clears things up and vindicates all those writing their century's
and decade's best lists...

Speaking of which, here's my Top 10 albums of 1999...counting down from
#10, roughly:

10. The Flaming Lips -- The Soft Bulletin
9. Cibo Matto -- Stereo-type A
8. Tom Waits -- The Mule Variations
7. Various Artists -- The Return of the Grievous Angel: A Tribute to Gram
Parsons
6. The Lilys -- The 3-Way
5. Olivia Tremor Control -- Black Foliage
4. Sleater-Kinney -- The Hot Rock
3. XTC -- Apple Venus, Vol. 1 (Yes, this surprises me too -- I would never
have guessed it wouldn't be #1!)
2. Wilco -- Summerteeth
1. Sloan -- Between the Bridges

Outnumbering the Top Ten are the following close calls, but all of which
had to be reserved for *Honorable Mention* (in no particular order):

The Innocence Mission -- Birds of My Neighborhood
Self -- Breakfast with Girls
Nine Inch Nails -- The Fragile
Chris Cornell -- Euphoria Morning
Tom Petty -- Echo
The Apples in Stereo -- Her Wallpaper Reverie
Beth Orton -- Central Reservation
Ben Folds Five -- The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner
Latin Playboys -- Dose
Fountains of Wayne -- Utopia Parkway
Guided by Voices -- Do the Collapse

I have a feeling I might have had to find a place for the newest albums
from Beck, Fiona Apple, and Los Lobos, but I haven't heard and/or bought
them yet.

Best album I bought in 1999 that was actually released in 1998: Sinead
Lohan's "No Mermaid."

Despite what people always say about the state of music, every year comes
through with some great stuff. Here's to 2000, "Apple Venus Vol. II" (and
maybe a title change), and other great new music!

Dave Gershman

------------------------------

From: Hbsherwood@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.5c887b7c.2587cf71@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:50:57 EST
Subject: That's some catch...

Aw, shit. Joseph Heller died.

>From: "Mark Strijbos" <mmello@knoware.nl>
>Subject: Skid Mark

>First of all a remark about the recent flurry of "Albums of the 90's"
>and "Composers of the Century" lists... as this decade, century and
>indeed this millenium won't be over for another year don't you all
>feel just a bit premature?

There is, I am told, a tradition in Holland, the homeland of *so* much that
is strange: legend has it that every New Year's Eve the streets and byways
are patrolled by a mythical band of wraiths who go by the name of Dionysus
Exiguus and the Odometers. They knock on the doors of engineers and
mathematicians, calling, "Hey, propeller-head! What year is it?" Woe betide
the hapless literalist who fails to poke his head out of the window and
respond "That depends on what month it is!" for he is nabbed roughly, thrown
in a burlap sack, and taken to Spain to do hard labor in the wicked Hapsburg
cogwheel mines.

Any attempt to prove to Dionysus Exiguus that any other answer is technically
correct will only serve to buttress his perception of your insanity, and
increase your chances of Iberian servitude. That's some catch, that Catch-2K.

(That one was for *you*, Uncle Joe! Good luck to you, wherever your final
destination may take you!)

>From: "Damian Wise (Foulger)" <damian@imclaser.com>
>Subject: The financial status of XtC

>Can one of you lucky Chalkhillians actually ask Mr. P or Mr. C
>how many they have sold and whether they are making any
>money from the project?  Obviously we don't need to know how
>many spondoolicks (sp?) they have made, but I would certainly
>be happy to know that they aren't mired in poverty.

Check http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~nonsuch/news.htm

The Estimated Simon Sleightholm, a fallen-away Chalkpiece whose shapely
buttocks have failed to grace our presence for many a moon, has The Partridge
Ear and frequently brags shamelessly about his chummy relationship with same.
The spot at which he does said bragging is his otherwise blameless website
Bungalow, and it was this spot that was the source for the following precis,
transcribed from a phone conversation with Erica's Husband on or around 25
November. Please forgive the painful clash between subject and verb in the
first clause. He's *English*, don't you know...

    XTC are no longer poor - the world-wide sales of Apple Venus
    Vol 1 are around the 250,000 mark and - despite the cost of
    the album ( around #108,000, after all the shenannigans with
    the recording process) - they have finally cleared some
    worthwhile profit. Apparently, they stand to make more from
    the Homespun disc than they did from Apple Venus (even though
    it's limited to only 20,000 copies in the US - TVT were worried
    about flooding the shelves with XTC product), simply because
    the overheads are negligible.

Where the hell *is* Sleightholm, anyway? In times of moral decay like this,
with dope fiends of every description lurking around corners waiting to rape
our wives and daughters, we look to his measured prose and level-headed
leadership to see us through....

Harrison "Bong hits! Bong hits! Bong hits!" Sherwood

PS: Doesn't the KJV have a section in the back that explains handy terms like
"tautology"? You might want to check...

------------------------------

Message-Id: <s8561063.098@tcwgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:39:32 -0800
From: "Dane Pereslete" <peresd@tcwgroup.com>
Subject: Me, Myself, and Irene

Just a quick note for all US XTC fans...

the movie "Me, Myself, and Irene" starring Jim Carrey and slated to include
"I'd Like That" in the soundtrack is slated for domestic release 23rd June
according to the Hollywood industry rags...

Back to Lurk Mode,

Dane

------------------------------

Message-ID: <130CB597E04ED211B2A400104B93AAC47DF7A9@ESCORP1>
From: "Wiencek, Dan" <dwiencek@crateandbarrel.com>
Subject: What the Dickens?
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:34:24 -0600

I just consulted the Chalkhills main site and discovered that Chalkhills is
no longer the "official" fan web page or mailing list. While I was never
entirely sure of that status to begin with, it was quite a shock. Did
something happen to occasion this fall from grace? John? Please give us the
skinny.

Dan W.

"Everybody hates Christmas a little."
-- Chuck Jones

------------------------------

From: Chauncy14@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.19b8f552.2587f1cc@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:17:32 EST
Subject: Redneck Wonderland musings

Greetings from Chicago, where the forecast for today was for mostly sh*tty
weather...

Anywho, I would like to address the Austrailians herein, or anyone else who
has Midnight Oils' _Redneck Wonderland_.

It did not receive much broadcast air-time here in 1998, the year of its
release, or this year for that matter (here in the low-pressure zone of
Chicago, Illinois), but was wondering how this album was received in other
part of the world???

I bought this album 4 days ago, and cannot, I repeat, cannot tear myself away
from this album.  The entire album is dark, janglie, and incredible sexy.  It
has lots of effects, keyboards, moody guitar work, and slick drumming.  P.
Garrett's vocals and songwriting are exceptional.  The dark and moody piano
on track 6 are incredible.  Track 9 has a sinister feel to it, and is a great
driving tune.    *White Skin Black Heart* is a whalen tune, for sure.  I
nearly blew my woofer out having that song cranked to 11....With the
exception to WSBH, I can't recall thre rest of the titles at this instant, as
I am work, and, because I haven't read the liner notes yet, but you will have
to forgive me, I hope...

To me, this album has a lot of Echo and The Bunnymen with a splash of Living
Colour.  It is bar far, one of their best albums in their catologue, imho.  I
also really enjoy listening to *10, 9, 8....1* too.

Anyone else have this album?  Tell me what you think of it.
-------
Yes,  Chauncy the gardener was just that, a gardener in *Being There.*  Good
for you all who guessed it.  Peter Sellers was indeed brilliant.  Thanks
Megan, CR Coolidge, and Tyler Hewitt for the honorable mention.  Is there an
XTC connection with the book, film or character? Hmph...No.
------
With all the *Thanks for Christmas* trainspotting that's been going on
throughout the digest, I can't get that song out of my head now....

John Chauncy Gardner
In mostly sh*tty Chicago
{rain mixed with snow, long commute to work...ranting...}

------------------------------

Message-ID: <19991214192546.91459.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom@hotmail.com>
Subject: Stupidity in Nihilon
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:25:46 GMT

David Oh:
>i think you missed the point, ol' chap. i was being facetious.
>
>yes, it is a very poor recording of a shower intended to sound like rain,
>but i said that, to me at least, it _sounded_ like someone taking a very
>long piss, not like the rain it was supposed to represent.
>
>don't you just hate it when you have to explain a joke?

Yes, and I did realize that you were making a joke.  I think I did, anyway.
I guess I wasn't in one of my smarter moments when I made that remark.

Incidentally, I listened to that song yesterday, and it DOES kind of sound
like someone taking a piss at the end.

Gee, I sound pretty stupid now, don't I?
--
Relaxing on my hands and knees, relaxing on my face,
Nathan
DinnerBell@tmbg.org
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/

------------------------------

Message-ID: <002e01bf466f$a7faaa00$011017d4@smj>
From: "Stephen Jackson" <smj@zen.co.uk>
Subject: OT Drugs
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:12:16 -0000

Tom writes

>I DO NOT stand behind the decrimilization of any drugs.

What about the legal status of tobacco and alcohol, which respectively kill
more people and  cause more social disorder than all the other drugs put
together. Let's face it, if alcohol were a new drug (like, say ,Ecstasy) do
you really believe that the powers at be would legalise it? No chance. Nor
would they legalise something as potently dangerous and toxic as tobacco.

 Why?  I'm not
>meaning to sound like some old codger, but the moral fabric of this country
>in specific and the world in general has been on a steady decline since the
6>0's.

So you maintain that the currently illicit drugs remain illegal? I don't
know, but looking at history, Prohibition didn't work, it just sent alcohol
underground and into the hands of criminals. By the same logic, wouldn't
decriminalisation of ( some, or all) drugs take those drugs out of the hands
of criminals?

>No one cares about what anyone thinks, says, does, or wants to do
>anymore.

Surely drugs cannot be solely responsible for society's moral decay and
acedia? The thin end of the wedge maybe, but I think it's a lot more
complicated than that. Drugs are the consequence, they're not the cause.

>No one cares about what anyone thinks, says, does, or wants to do
>anymore.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say I would be far more concerned in my
children using drugs (and, ultimately, it's their choice) *safely.* And that
means education. If my child was taking drugs, I think my last concern would
be the fact that my child was *breaking the law*

> And once they legalize marijuana, what's to stop other drugs
>from being legalized?

And again, remember that alcohol and tobacco are both damaging and fiercely
addictive drugs. And legal.

>If it were up to me, cigarettes and alcohol would be illegal too

Ah, you did. Let's make many more decent folk criminals? Doesn't sound
smart, but it does sound right-wing.

<snipped stuff on Arizona pro-cannabis campaign that I know too little about
to comment on>

>  Why?  Because it's not about legalizing a
>substance for medical use, it's about legalizing it for their own use.

Utter cak. How cynical...you honestly believe that all those who campaign
for the legislation of cannabis for multiple sclerosis sufferers,do it
solely for their own gains?

>prove to me that
>legalizing drugs now will not harm the future potential of our children,
>that they will not become lethargic addicts, junkies, and losers.

This logic relies on the misguided belief that because something is illegal
then people won't do it. In the UK, in the early nineties, it was estimated
than a million ecstasy tablets (in a population of approx 57 million) were
consumed *every* weekend. Where I live, 38% of 15 year olds have tried an
illegal (or illicit) substance. That's a lot of criminals....So if we
legalise a substance then more people will use that substance? Maybe, but In
my experience, the fact that some drugs are illegal is not the greatest
deterrent, at least where young people are concerned.

> Prove to
>me that in a few years after marijuana is legalized that something worse
>won't be legalized.  You can't prove it, you can't prove any of it.

This is true, but likewise you can't prove that the legislation of cannabis
will not release police authorities to get on with their jobs, instead of
issuing cautions to those in possession, will not give MS sufferers
something to reduce pain, will not give those suffering from the effects of
chemotherapy something to reduce nausea, that governments will not make a
tidy sum out of tax and that one particular drug will not be taken out of
the hands of drug dealers and criminals, and finally will not make
inconsistent and contradictory drug laws make a little more sense.

I sit squarely on the fence where drug legislation is concerned. I can see
both pros and cons, but hyperbole about how drugs are turning our children
into 'addicts, junkies and losers' isn't going to move us forward...

Obligatory XTC content...."shocked me too the things we did on grass" (yeah
yeah I know it's the green kind)

Steve. (none illegal drug taking, 'occasional tipple' drinking, none smoker)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No room to move, no room for doubt.

------------------------------

End of Chalkhills Digest #5-340
*******************************

Go back to the previous page.